Saturday, November 2, 2013

Demon Possession and the Christian

Here are a few exploratory thoughts regarding demon possession and the Christian. This is not as fully developed as I would like and this should be seen as tentative in relationship to the two articles I contrast. I would recommend reading both articles to get a flavor for the differing types of reasoning involved.
____________________________________________________

Among evangelicals there has been debate
regarding the question, “Can a Christian be demon possessed?”A variety of biblical texts and
theological reasoning are thrown back and forth but with, seemingly, little
movement in the discussion.By
re-framing the discussion and looking at commonalities between the two
positions a larger arena of agreement may be achieved.The first goal will be to locate the
hinge of the debate regarding demon possession.What exactly is being debated when evangelicals speak of
“possession?”By paying careful
attention to what those who deny Christian possession are willing to grant can happen to a Christian it will be
seen that the divergence between the two positions is not that great after
all.The second goal will be to
briefly discuss how to best minister to a Christian who is experiencing an
especially acute struggle with the demonic.

For
purposes of this paper two articles, which lay out contrary positions regarding
the Christian and demon possession, will be compared.[1]Brent Grimsley and Elliot Miller in
their article denying demon possession of a Christian state early on in their
discussion:

Thus, the issue is not the
translation of the verb [δαιμονίζομαι], but the location of wicked spirits
relative to the believer.In other
words we may ask: Can demons control
Christians from within or only oppress
them from without?[2]

Grimsley and Miller, thus, isolate
two factors to be considered: location (within or without) and influence
(control or oppression).However,
the manner in which they explicate this is deficient for they only render two
possibilities flowing from these two variables.They completely overlook a third option: Demonic control of the Christian from without.[3]Of course, there will be a spectrum of
possible meanings for “control” but this option should not be overlooked.In fact, Grimsley and Miller come very
close to just such a proposal later in their article.In speaking about those “dramatic cases” appealed to by
those who argue for the possibility of Christian possession they write:

It seems that demons would be
capable of producing certain audible, mental, and bodily phenomena from a
position external to the Christian in order to create the illusion that the
Christian is, in fact, possessed.If they can convince believers that they have the power to control them,
then such believers, though actually
in control of their own wills, will grant the powers of darkness a degree of
control by default.[4]

Notice the two key features of the
demonic as “external to the Christian” and the granting to the “powers of
darkness a degree of control by default.”This is a fascinating admission that contains the seeds for fruitful
discussions that may serve to bridge the two viewpoints.

As
a starting point it is first helpful to recognize that the issue of “location”
is not the central concern.If a
Christian can be placed, or place oneself, under severe demonic control then it
ultimately does not matter whether that control is obtained by demonic spirits inside the believer as opposed to from a
position outside the believer.Sam
Storms helpfully articulates this concern: “Is it necessary for a demon to be
spatially ‘inside’ a person’s mind to infuse or to suggest words, thoughts, or
for that person to ‘hear voices’ not their own?”[5]

Granting
that demons can interject thoughts and words into a Christian’s mind how much
influence might this have on the Christian?It is here that Grimsley and Miller’s discussion should be
nuanced.They spoke of how
oppressed Christians are still “actually
in control of their own wills,” but still, nevertheless, “grant the powers of
darkness a degree of control by default.”What does this mean exactly?Perhaps headway can be attained by looking at an analogous situation in
which a Christian has been victimized by abuse and noticing the effects
produced upon the will.

Dr.
Steven Tracy articulates some of the effects that traumatic abuse can have on
people.Some of these effects include:
hyperarousal, intrusion, and numbing.[6]These effects can influence the nature
of human responses.In other
words, the “will” may be constrained in certain ways that narrow the range of
human choice.Tracy explains:

This isn’t implying that abuse
survivors have no responsibility for their behavior, but it’s simply pointing
to the truth that the effects of trauma are very complicated.Many of the effects of trauma are not
consciously chosen by the victim.Abuse victims do not choose to have amnesia, nightmares, flashbacks,
panic attacks, or increased heart rates.[7]

If the traumatic abuse from another
human being can produce such effects might it not be possible that demonic
oppression can produce similar results?If such a possibility is granted then there is reason to envision a
scenario in which a Christian can come under demonic oppression to such an
extent that profound influence is exercised by such demonic beings.The Christian’s “will”—the ability to
choose—may be significantly impaired or constrained.Such a scenario fits well the view mentioned earlier: Demonic
control of the Christian from without.Thus, with a bit of expansion regarding the notion of the will as being
constrained and a move beyond the issue of the location of the demonic (i.e.,
insider versus outside) the two positions can come to common ground.There will, of course, continue to be
potential disagreement on the nature and extent of the “control” or “influence”
that the demonic can have on the Christian.Nevertheless, the common ground reached is not
insignificant.